I didn’t realize I’d been gone for so long, my apologies Constant Reader. I wish I could say it was for a specific reason yet that would not be accurate. I’ve simply been living life and having a life to live is a pretty good thing.

There are a few updates one of which is an interesting development at the gig. We’ve been targeted by a 1st Amendment auditor. Don’t know what that is? That’s fine neither do they actually. In reality they are grifters who are cashing in on the malcontent of the right fringe. It’s completely fucked up my algorithm but I still went down the rabbit hole to understand a little more about ‘them’.

We’ve encountered

Jonathan Travis Moore AKA Jonathan Kasprowicz, Vacaville Resident

His YouTube handle is Bay Area Transparency.

I have bias here, that is clear and apparent. My bias stems not from the ‘work’ this person does rather his deliberate choices in how he performs this ‘work’.

Transparency in governing, testing of the regulations which imped on our constitutional rights is not a bad thing in the abstract. If someone chooses to earn a living by documenting this, again not a bad thing in the abstract. Within reason we should all have the opportunity to support our households via the economic method of our choosing. There is also, especially with our current administration and its policies, the need for citizens to draw a line in the sand and vigorously fight to maintain the rights given to us by the constitution and other methods. The thought is not the problem. The problem is that doing the above in a respectful manner doesn’t get clicks. In his videos he will narrate that he is respectful, yet he chooses a course of action which is designed to engage a certain type of viewer, support their desire to humiliate and experience power vicariously through his videos.

In our encounter he chose to escalate matters vs simple auditing.

It will be interesting to see how he chooses to spin the narrative when he completes his ‘audit’ of our offices. What is also interesting, to me at least, is how our offices have responded so far. That is a later conversation though. Allow me to begin with our introduction.

A man with a hand held camera phone walked into the office and began recording. When he entered he began to record the signs on the walls and the materials we have open for the use of the public. Security came to me to ask if it was ok and I advised them to allow him to continue. We service all types of people in my office and some might have physical disability and/or might require assistive devices. At the time he was not interacting with our participants and was not being a disrupting presence. He continued to film being observed by both security and myself. He appeared to not be including our participants in his recording so he was not approached by me. When I did leave the reception area to ask my first question of him was when he began to record our security system. When I stepped out I asked if I could help him. He said no. I said something along the line of may I ask why you are recording our security system. While I do not recall his response, I did request that not record our security system.

At this time, he’d not come to the reception desk, he’d not identified his need to be in the building. He’d made no indication he was a program participant or had questions about being a program participant. Any reasonable person would ask the question of why you are recording the security system of the building and I would argue that most, would ask him to stop. As I recall this encounter, I cannot say with certainty that I returned back to reception. I believe that I did but considering I didn’t expect to meet with Jonathan I wasn’t overly concerned with documenting each of my steps with him. I was hired to provide customer service to participants and potential participants. At this point of our interaction he declined to identify himself as either one and refused to share a way I could be of service to him. I believe that I returned to reception to assist actual participants but I could be mistaken. I can share that there was a portion of our conversation where I requested that he step to a different part of the lobby with me. I did not ask him to stop recording. I didn’t say he could not be present. I was specific with my request and intention – where we were participants were sitting. I requested he not film our participants. His response was along the lines of ‘I try not to’. To me the solution would be to step to the other portion of the lobby where there were zero participants. Jonathan declined to do such. Assuming he is truthful and that he doesn’t edit his videos to favor himself any posted interaction will reflect the truth in my statement. I do know that I repeated my concerns to him. That he had not identified a need to be in the building, that he refused to identify how myself or the staff could be of assistance and that my concern was that program participants were being filmed.

I never raised my voice, called him out of his name or used terse language. That is not my behavior in general but a part of why I am in the position I have is that I understand that scenarios escalate swiftly. I do what I can to prevent escalation when possible.

Now let’s get into how this could have gone differently if the audit was for checks and balances and not click bait.

He isn’t required to made the advanced call he is arriving. That would impact his real time results. I understand that would not ask that. He isn’t required to sign in as he often shares in his videos. To the best of my knowledge he wasn’t asked to sign in, but if someone did ask him then he is within his right to decline. He is also not required to identify himself. While common sense and courtesy might dictate that giving a name can make an interaction more smooth, he does not have to do that. At the most these two things would be an inconvenience to a staff and well that can happen. Jonathan deliberately chooses language and behavior in these situations that can cause escalation.

If a random person walks into a building, begins to record, declines assistance and declines to identify themselves even with just a first name, a reasonable person will question their intentions. In 2025 we are all aware that there are people who have ill intentions and could possibly attempt to harm persons or property. To the best of my knowledge it is not Jonathan’s intention to physically harm persons or property. I will share my assessment of his channel does indicate that he desires to inflict psychological trauma.

After Jonathan refused to do all of the above and declined to agree to not film participants I did advise I would ask security to remove him. That moment – well there were MANY MOMENTS prior – but it was as that moment he could have chosen to disclose he was doing a 1st Amendment audit of our facility. If I were given that information I would have had a supervisor meet with him and continued on my day. I did call for a supervisor though, because based on our interaction it was clear to me that Jonathan would resist being removed from the property. In hindsight I should have looped in a supervisor earlier. That might be hubris on my part.

His pattern of behavior is clear. Be evasive and dismissive and hope to encounter someone who will match his energy.

He says he wants to teach the public servants. Any person with an actual desire to teach fundamentally understands sharing, educating and bullying are all different behaviors. Jonathan in my opinion is a bully.

As he demonstrates in his videos and in my encounter with him, bullying is more his intention than educating. Could I use additional education on 1st Amendment Auditors? Sure. Do I need education on dealing with bullies? Nope.

When met with a person like myself who doesn’t yell or insist he turn off the camera and not record me he deliberately remains because he insists that the person move on his time. That is not how things work, ever. While a general member of the public might have a right to service, they don’t have the right to dictate the method of that service. Even a public entity can set boundaries. Things like service hours service locations are boundaries. All Jonathan had to do was state he was ‘exerting’ his 1st Amendment rights and make his FOIA request. Instead he wanted to continue to film, areas he’d already captured and delay his request until he ‘felt like it’. That is not about exercising his rights it is about exercising his ‘power’. His viewers love it. I will say others can see through his charade. Those with actual power need not proclaim it. they simply carry it. Those responsible with the power they have do not bully those who might have less, or they perceive have less.

He’s disrupted the office for more than one day now. The laws are clear that he cannot disrupt business operations while exercising his freedoms. How the program chooses to handle the matter is beyond my pay grade. I don’t have to factor in public perception or any of the other number of things the board does. I do know that my handling of the matter would be different than how they will manage it. Not my issue.

I will say I am mildly curious how he will choose to present me. I am also curious to see if the board chooses to resist this mild form of what I would call terrorism.

Time will tell though.

Jonathan perhaps might find, as others have before him, that attempting to bully me doesn’t end quite in the manner they think.